Omakase

Amazon Search

That’s Different

Four years ago, Salon’s Eric Boehlert joined a chorus of aggrieved voices expressing dismay over President Bush’s “extravagant” $40 million inaugural bash. The nation was at war, and that. Two wars. It was an unseemly display of vain triumphalism.

With his successor getting ready to plunk down $100 million, those voices are strangely silent. After all, there’s still a war going on. And a financial crisis.

Maybe it’s some class of stimulus plan. Or maybe it’s just that the invite list has changed.

Share

19 comments to That’s Different

  • AW1 Tim

    Maybe it’s because Patron & canapes are more expensive than beer and barbecue?

    I mean, seriously, what’s a mere couple hundred million for a Coronation when you’ve already dispensed a trillion or so for your political allies?

  • Marine6

    Isn’t the Golden Rule of Democratic poloitics Do as we say, not as we do?

  • Oh, it gets better. Now another $15 million is being kicked in from FEMA emergency funds. Yes, that FEMA.

  • P-3W

    Good Lord.

    Can I just go hide for the next four years???

    Please.

  • And they jumped all over the CEO’s of the Big 3 for flying to Washington on their corporate jets…

    AIG???

    Wallstreet?????

    Change? Not really. Same as it ever was.

  • Quartermaster

    The left is hypocritical as well as lawless. This isn’t news at all.

  • xairboss (alias) E Yat

    The left is not hypocritical. According to Charles Krauthammer on FOX this evening, they are “hypocritical squared.”

  • John

    I will cut my carbon emissions by not watching the coronation activities. That will also prevent a lot of needless swearing and shouting, and possible damage to a TV set watching these ignoramuses who have been elected. And their allies in the media.

    I think I’d rather be seasick than listen to the cackling glee of the loony leftists.

  • CPLGolden

    Maybe it is all the “limited edition” plates, coins, and stuff he is “marketing”.

    Funding.

    Gotta luv it.

  • AW1 Tim

    Just wait until someone on the Congress Critter’s staff takes a cue from the porn industry and changes all the .gov phone numbers to 1-900 ones.. Man, the cash will be rolling in then… sigh.

  • Okay, help me out here. Not trying to be a smart alec, just honestly trying to figure this out. Bush’s $40 million was raised by the GOP (if I am reading the links correctly) but then there were additional costs for security which apparently weren’t covered.

    According to the Daily Mail article, Obama’s 100 million is in pounds not dollars (with 66 million pounds apparently raised in donations) and I assume British pounds still outrank American dollars. Which I guess they must because according to the News Busters article, Obama’s innaugaration is suppose to cost $45 million, plus security costs.

    So, sure I get the point that it is rather hypocritical to complain about one and not the other, especially when the economy is worse now but the cost difference between the two events isn’t as large as implied, is it? And when the media critized Sara Palin for the cost of her wardrobe, I had to wonder why they were so concerned when the taxpayer wasn’t footing the bill. So if the tax payer is footing the bill for security for both innaugarations but not much else … what were we talking about again?

  • MajHarvey

    According to the international currency converter XE.com, 110 million pounds is equal to $160,692,364.53

    That’s a lot of Patron and canapes!

  • MaxDamage

    Michelle, quite simply the taxpayer is picking up a lot more bill for security. Bush 43′s second inaguration had maybe 300,000 in attendance. His first had similar numbers. Naturally, with greater numbers of people the security forces needed, infrastructure like porta-potties and aid stations and the like are going to increase.

    It will be interesting to see if Obama breaks the crowd record, either by official estimates or press estimates (the two are not generally even in the same ballpark).

    Who holds the record?

    Lyndon B. Johnson, in 1965, with an official tally of 1.2 million.

    – Max

  • MaxDamage

    John, when I had satellite TV I used to watch these things while dry-firing a Colt M1911 for trigger practice (this was before the Little Tricycle Motor entered the domicile). I’d pick some point of interest on the screen, present and click, then check my actual aiming point.

    It was cheap practice, and I always figured it had a couple of side benefits. If I made a mistake, I’d learn a valuable lesson in gun safety, and I’d have also shot my TV.

    Which, at some point hasn’t nearly everybody here wanted to do that?

    – Max

  • Oops, my bad. So does that make the cost of Obama’s event closer to $45million or $166 million? Now that’s a significant cost difference.

    But, hey, it is history in the making … doesn’t that make everything else all right? /snark

  • b2

    It’s ‘historic’…what don’t you get? After 8 years of B&C who stole the election, ‘they’ deserve a big shindig..No, that’s not right either- they are entitled to it. LOL.

    Who they?

    http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/1217081mugyear6.html

    Just kidding of course…

    Badx2

  • Y’all are missing the point. Barry will be spending environmentally-sustainable green dollars that create high-paying new jobs.

  • B2 – that is classic stuff! I love those mug shots – so many of them were wearing Obama t-shirts too!

  • b2

    Kris,

    To amplify what you have observed, this email came with the link:

    “Now isn’t this a sterling collection of individuals? Maybe they think The Messiah will commute their sentences? The new fashion statement for mugshots! Interesting correlation is Chicago police dept has no mugshots with Bush on their t-shirts.

    Anyone out there have any mugshots of people wearing any Bush or McCain shirts?

    Didin’t think so!! This was sent by a Chicago Police Officer, by the way………….”

    b2

eXTReMe Tracker

View My Stats